Standing Committee A

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

Clause 29 - Compulsory surrender of old-form licences

Amendment moved [this day], No. 69, in clause 29, page 38, line 21, leave out 
'pays such fee (if any) as specified by the order, and (b)'.—[John Thurso.]

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
No. 68, in clause 30, page 39, line 13, leave out subsection (1). 
No. 72, in clause 30, page 39, line 24, leave out 'that Act' and insert 
'the Road Traffic Act 1988'.

John Thurso: I was seeking to persuade the Committee that, in respect of fees, it would be appropriate to leave the Bill where it is. The amendments would do that by removing subsection (4)(a), the fee-paying part of the clause, and clause 30(1). I had begun to refer to the comment made by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), that the Government were seeking to impose the principle of the user pays. I have no particular argument with that concept, but I ask her to expand on it.
A wide variety of options was suggested in the consultation paper published earlier this year on proposed fees. One included the possibility of very low fees or, if I remember correctly, no fees for young people acquiring a provisional licence, the idea being that they should be encouraged to do so and that a low fee would encourage them. That may or may not be the case, but the consultation subscribed not to a principle that the user pays specifically for the service that they have used, but to the principle that the generality of service users across the piece should provide revenue to cover the costs, which seems somewhat different. 
For example, if a company provides a service or product for which there is a healthy market and keen competition therefore exists to keep the end-user price down, it will be under considerable pressure to be as efficient as possible in controlling the cost of providing the product or service. In this case, however, there is a monopoly. There is only one provider of the licence, and it sets the fee. Whether the fee is set in the context of the keenest possible costs and the minimum recovered or in the context of low efficiency, which may mean that it is higher than necessary, is entirely  decided by the people who are in charge of controlling the costs. I would say in parenthesis that my comments are in no way intended to be disparaging of those who work in that service; I merely give a hypothetical situation. If there were laxity and the costs went up, the fees could go up. There would be no control. 
 The concept that has been followed in the past is that all Government revenue goes to the Consolidated Fund and all expenses come out of it. In such circumstances, if one considers the consolidated payments that drivers make, one could argue that they have already paid enough and that they are entitled to receive free of charge what they have always received free of charge. 
I would be interested in hearing from the Minister what the Government's thinking is on that. At what point will they cease to charge for all the different things that come in? As I said this morning, we may be entering a situation, particularly in respect of clause 30, in which all sorts of new technologies come in quickly, as technology does, resulting in a series of new licences. Whereas with my old paper licence I could confidently expect to make it to my 70th birthday without any charge, I could now be faced with a charge every five or 10 years. 
I shall listen closely to what the Minister says, and I am open to persuasion. In a previous debate, I was persuaded by her to support an amendment that I had not intended to support. I leave it entirely in her hands to give me some reassurance, and I will listen to her comments and make my judgment about what to do at the end of them.

Greg Knight: Subject to what the Minister has to say, I rise to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents half of Scotland. He made several excellent points. The more one reflects on this debate, the more one is forced to ask why the clause appears in the Bill. Is it in any way related to an EU directive that will require the Minister to call in our old licences and issue them in a new format? Incidentally, I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was approaching his 70th birthday, but I am sure that we all wish him well.
The question is why individual drivers should have to pay a fee because the state now does not like the form of licence that it issued previously. In essence, that is what the clause is about. The hon. Gentleman made a very good case, and unless the Minister advances an argument that I have not thought of, I am minded to support him.

David Wilshire: I want to confine my comments wholly to the amendment. There is a clause stand part issue that is separate from the amendment, but I shall, if I may, deal with it later.
 I have had to think carefully before saying that I agree with the Liberal Democrats, as I wonder whether I really understand what they are saying and whether they will say the same thing or something entirely different tomorrow. For the moment, however, I will settle for what they have proposed. As long as it stays  on the table, I support its principle for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). 
We do not choose to have a driving licence; the law requires us to have one and it determines the form. There is no choice and no discretion; we cannot go to somebody else for it and we have to have it. Thus, if somebody has said ''This is what you must have in order to drive a vehicle and you have got it'' while the person supplying it says, ''But actually we have changed our minds; you ought to have something else and you don't have any choice in the matter,'' I do not see why we should be forced to pay for the new version. In the open market, if one buys a product because one considers it a good idea, but a subsequent model becomes available and one freely decides to buy that, it is not unreasonable to pay for the replacement. On the other hand, if we do not choose to acquire a product, but the issuer says they have a better idea and will force us to have another product, without which we cannot otherwise drive our car, we should not be forced to pay for it. 
We are looking at yet another stealth tax, because the Government, having decided to change their mind, can dump on the taxpayer a charge that they should bear out of general taxation, being open and honest about the matter. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting the amendment.

Christopher Chope: We are almost reaching unanimity. I support the amendment, and if the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross had not tabled it, I would have tabled a similar one.
The Government are trying to undermine a principle. Once one has obtained a licence for a fixed period, one must not only surrender it, but pay for the privilege of having a replacement supplied under a requirement from the European Union or from this Government. It is wrong in principle that someone who has a licence and looks after it perfectly well should have to pay for a replacement. That is not what happens with bank cards or any other document when the provider decides to replace it. Replacement of a licence because the driver is at fault is a completely different matter. If the clause is not amended, it will amount—the Minister is waiting for me to say this—to another stealth tax.

Charlotte Atkins: When the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority was set up by the party now on the Opposition Benches, it was set up as an organisation that paid for its activities out of its own fee structure. Therefore, it is effectively self-financing. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned the consultation that has just finished, in which the DVLA explored a range of options, including its fee structure. It is now conducting several meetings with various stakeholders, including Age Concern, motoring organisations, classic car collector groups, local  authorities and so on, to decide the best way in which to proceed with fees, and it is likely that other consultations will take place.
We must consider where the money will come from, and it could come from new licences. Some 15 million drivers have already exchanged their paper licences for photo licences and paid a fee. Others, in various ways, have changed their licences without paying a fee. We must then consider whether it is sensible to introduce a fee for exchanging the old paper licence for the new plastic one. No decision has yet been made, but as Opposition Members have pointed out, the clause gives the Secretary of State the option to make that change. If fees were not taken for the issue of licences, other charges could be introduced. For instance, an annual charge on someone keeping a vehicle could help to cross-subsidise new driving licences. 
Why does the DVLA want to speed up the transition from paper licences to the new licence? It is largely an issue of security. Presently, three different types of paper licence are in circulation, all of which are valid. The security of paper licences is not as robust as that of plastic card licences. In the first place, holders of paper licences were not subject to the same identity checks as are currently standard for photocard licence holders. Paper licences were generally issued on the basis of a self-declaration from the owner, whereas photocard holders must produce documentary evidence, such as birth certificates or passports. 
If the DVLA decided that it wanted to recall the three different types of paper licence, the timing would be carefully designed to coincide with the introduction of another initiative—for instance, a much more secure licence, possibly containing a chip. The obvious time to consider a full recall of the present paper licence would be when the paper counterpart is abolished, for which the Bill provides. Indeed, we might move to even smarter electronic cards, given the present technology.

Greg Knight: If the Minister is saying that the security checks that were in place for the older form of licences were not as rigorous, we should be given some evidence that there is a need for the change. How much abuse and fraud take place? How many cases have there been? What do the police conclude is the scale of the problem? Just to state that the security checks were not as good previously as they are now is not a basis for making this big change. I was a little alarmed at her opening remarks, in which she appeared to say, ''The consultation process is under way. We have drawn no conclusions yet, but we want the Secretary of State to have the power to make the change in case we make the decision.'' If the consultation process is genuine, should it not be allowed to run its course before a decision is made? If new legislation is then needed, the Government should seek it at that moment. They should not put it in a Bill just in case the consultation goes in a particular direction.

Peter Pike: Order. I think that that intervention has run a little longer than it should.

Charlotte Atkins: This is an enabling power. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about it, but it makes sense to include it in the Bill. Clearly, we are discussing what is partly a security measure. I am informed that there is huge abuse of paper licences, which is why the Bill says that driving examiners should be able to pull in licences if they consider them suspect.
There is evidence of abuse against the paper licence. Disqualified drivers continue to drive using other people's paper licences. As there is no photocard, it is quite easy for people to switch paper licences. As I said, applicants for paper licences did not have to identify themselves by means of any other form of secure identification such as a passport.

David Wilshire: Again, the Minister has said that there is evidence. I do not wish to press the matter, because the information is patently not readily to hand, but may I ask her to write to the Committee, giving full details of the evidence and the number of prosecutions?

Charlotte Atkins: I am certainly happy to do that, and I would hope to do so fairly quickly. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the circulation of different forms of licensing means that there is likely to be an element of fraud.

Greg Knight: Can the Minister tell the Committee what percentage of motorists have each form of licence? Is it not the case that the new form of licence is growing because—this point relates to an intervention I made this morning—as people move house and send back their old licence, they are issued with the new type? Surely by effluxion over time, the old form of licences will be greatly reduced in any event.

Charlotte Atkins: That is certainly the case. When someone moves house, they do not have to be charged for the issue of a new photo licence. It appears that 20 million drivers have the photocard and 18 million still have the paper form, whichever one they have. That is the balance. It will clearly take a good number of years for the paper licence to drift out of circulation. Some people will keep their paper licence in better condition than I kept mine.

Mark Fisher: Will my hon. Friend clarify two points? Is the information that the plastic licence holds precisely the same as is held on the paper licence? I was under the impression that the plastic licence did not include any points or penalties that had been incurred. On a related point, will the information on the new licence be part of the information on the Government's planned individual ID card?

Charlotte Atkins: The plastic card has a paper form that goes with it. That is where the penalty points and such are recorded. We have a sample of the card here—I prepared it earlier, ''Blue Peter'' style—so I can show the Committee the photo licence and the counterpart. No offences have been recorded on this particular counterpart, and I am sure that there are none on my  hon. Friend's licence either. As far as the ID card is concerned, that is clearly some time away, as he will know.

Peter Pike: Order. May I ask the Minister to address the Chair, because Hansard finds things difficult when she is facing the other way?

Charlotte Atkins: I apologise. The ID card, to which my hon. Friend referred, is a separate exercise that we are clearly still consulting on. At the moment, it is not part of the DVLA plans. The licence is not currently expected to be part of the ID card system, because it is produced by the DVLA. Although I am sure that technology will be such in future that we will be able to store everything that we need on one very easy card, what is proposed is merely a process of trying to take out of circulation a lot of the paper licences, which are subject to fraud. Some 15 million people have already paid for a photo licence, and it is down to the DVLA to look at the way forward when it has consulted stakeholders.

Christopher Chope: The Minister says that the paper licences are subject to fraud. Surely the counterparts are equally subject to fraud. If not, why not?

Charlotte Atkins: Simply because the photo licence has a photo on it. Clearly, a photograph makes it more secure. The counterpart relates merely to penalties. We are talking about driver identification, not driver misdemeanour. In future, when we get rid of the counterpart, cards are likely to include penalty points and so on. At the moment, that is dealt with in the counterpart. As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading the Bill, it is intended that the counterpart will be withdrawn. That would make the licence much more secure.

Mark Fisher: I do not want to labour the point, but those comments seem slightly odd. The Minister's answer was much as I imagined it would be, although I had thought that I must be wrong. She is saying that we are getting rid of the old paper licence and changing to modern plastic, but adding another layer of paper. So we are back to where we started, not with a paper licence, but with a paper element. Is it really beyond the scope of modern technology to get all that information on to the card? It seems almost like ''Alice in Wonderland''—

Peter Pike: Order. Before we go too fast, let us remember the point of the amendment. Have you finished making your point, Mr. Fisher?

Mark Fisher: I hope that the Minister has got the drift and that she will be able to respond.

Peter Pike: The Minister will recognise that we must keep to the amendment.

Charlotte Atkins: That is right, Mr. Pike. I am delighted to have that guidance.
Clearly, we will want to update the cards in future. As I understand it, the photocard is issued for 10 years. It is sensible that the photograph is updated, as with a passport.

Greg Knight: On vetting, which the Minister has mentioned, can she tell me what vetting there will be if someone with the old licence moves house, to use the example that I gave earlier, and sends that licence to the authorities asking for their new address to be entered, but does not send any photographs? Presumably, they will get a letter back asking for photos. What vetting takes place to ensure that if there is a fraud, it is not perpetuated?

Charlotte Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The person would get a card with a photograph. Obviously, the driver has to supply the photograph, and they also have to supply a birth certificate. As part of the process of moving from paper licences—whether because of a change of address or some other reason—to the new photocard licence, there must be supporting evidence in the form of a photograph and a birth certificate or passport.

David Wilshire: The general point of the plastic licence and the counterpart is the very thing that I want to talk about in a stand part debate. On the cost, can the Minister confirm that what I think that I am hearing is correct? I was objecting to the principle of having my old paper licence called in and being made to pay for the new plastic one, plus the piece of paper. I now hear, however, not only that could I be made to pay for the replacement, but that in due course, when a way has been found of getting rid of the counterpart, I will be made to pay again for another Government change of mind. We might be discussing two demands for payment rather than one. In that case, my objections are multiplied by two.

Charlotte Atkins: I was making the point that the photocard is obviously more robust in terms of fraud, but most documents with a photograph require that photograph to be updated. The hon. Gentleman may stay looking exactly the same, but most of us change over 10 years or more.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, but she has not answered my question. Will we have to pay twice when the paper requirement is withdrawn? I have now just heard, by way of response, that we may be made to pay three, four or five times. She has explained that we will have to pay the first time, and she has not denied that we will have to pay when the paper is withdrawn, but when more of my hair drops out and I  have to provide a new photograph to show that I have changed, will the new document be provided for free or will there be another charge?

Charlotte Atkins: After 10 years, it is likely that a new charge will be made. When the counterpart is removed, however, there will be no charge at that point.

John Thurso: We have had a fascinating debate; indeed, it has been slightly more so than I anticipated when I tabled the amendment. I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), as well as for that of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), whose support I take in the spirit in which I am sure he intended it. His support for me gives me exactly the same concerns and worries as it gives him.
I will not go through all the points that can be made about the amendments. We have had a good debate and there are important points to come. I am concerned, however, by the principle. More and more in modern life, we are being asked to pay for things that we previously did not have to pay for. In the not-too-distant future, people on low incomes will be paying for their ID cards, and if they happen to be from the far north of Scotland or the islands, they will have to travel to Glasgow to get a card, at considerable cost. Now there will be a charge when the paper licence goes and when the counterpart goes, and there will probably be a charge every 10 years afterwards.

Charlotte Atkins: I said earlier that there will be no charge when the counterpart goes.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that her generosity to the people of Great Britain is hugely appreciated. As clause 30 sets out, however, there will be a charge every time the system or photograph is changed.
The Minister said that there was no immediate requirement for this measure. I noted her words when she said that the change would be carefully timed, possibly to coincide with the introduction of new technology or chips. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming— 
The Chairman: Order. There will be another Division at 3.41 pm. In case anyone feels that I am trying to curtail the debate, I should explain that I want progress to be made, because the Chair has responsibility for the whole of the selection list. The final two sittings of the Committee are both time-limited. Today, we can adjourn for tea at 5.30 pm or for dinner at 7 pm, if you so wish, and you have all the time you want to debate the issues. I am in no way trying to curtail the time available, but I should like to know at some stage what you are going to do.

John Thurso: Having listened to that stricture, I say only that, if the measure is not needed now, why put it in the Bill? I listened carefully to the Minister's valiant efforts to defend the position, but I am not persuaded. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the Committee.

Charlotte Atkins: I clarify that, without a power to charge a fee, licences issued to replace recalled licences would be issued free of charge. The costs would have to be recouped elsewhere. That might mean increasing the cost of, for example, the first provisional licence. Our fear is that a charge might lead to more people driving without a licence. We will certainly try to discourage that.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), said that old-form licences would not have to be returned compulsorily until the pure new photocard licences were in force and that there would be no interim requirement for the surrender of old-form licences prior to the introduction of the full photocard without a counterpart. That is what I understood him to be saying and I hope that he or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, will restate that proposition in the context of the clause.
In responding to the amendment earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, said that, because the DVLA is self-financing, the burden of the changes must be borne by someone else. [Interruption.]

Peter Pike: Order. There is too much discussion in the Committee and I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Christopher Chope: The Minister said that because the DVLA is self-financing a cost would have to be passed to other licence holders if it was not borne by the people who were being required to surrender their old-form licences.
When I was the Minister responsible for balancing the books of the DVLA, we considered how to ensure that licences for new drivers were not too expensive. At that stage, someone who reached the age of 70 could renew their licence without paying any fee. As the Minister will know, there is a long lead-in period before such changes can be introduced, so we consulted. 
We decided that it would be reasonable to introduce a modest fee for a 70-year-old seeking renewal of a licence, because otherwise the costs for the first-time licence holder would have been too great. At that stage, a leading article in The Sunday Telegraph said that the provision was a new tax on pensioners. I had to respond by pointing out that pensioners who had cars and were able to drive were in a financially stronger position than people who were just joining the labour market and getting their first licence. That argument was then carried through in the No. 10 policy unit, or whatever its equivalent was at that stage. 
This Government are saying that the old-form licences should be called in and that people should have to pay for the costs of obtaining a replacement. That cuts across the principle that we applied in government, which is contained in existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 about the fee for renewal of a photocard licence. 
The Government are being unreasonable. If they wish to make a policy change of withdrawing the old-form licences, and I am far from being persuaded that it is necessary, the costs should be borne by the Government rather than a particular sector of the community.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. It may be helpful to note that I recently received a message stating that there are likely to be two votes at 3.41 pm rather than one.
I want to raise a general issue, which is why I confined my comments on the amendment strictly to the question of payment. The more I listen to the debate, the more I am concerned about the withdrawal or phasing out of the old-form licence. There is an argument in favour of it, and I suppose that over the course of time, withdrawal will take place. If the  Government of the day want to do that, I do not necessarily object in principle. What we are not being told in this clause, but gathering from the previous and current debate, is that the Government, in getting rid of the old-form licence, want to substitute it for an interim arrangement. The clause does not make that clear, other than to say that we will get a piece of plastic and a piece of paper, which the Government acknowledge is not satisfactory and will have to be substituted again. 
Rather than take powers for an interim change, it would be far more sensible either to make arrangements now, so that the recall takes place when the final version—a single piece of plastic—is available, or just leave the whole thing well alone. Knowing how the Government bungle any IT programme they get their hands on, I imagine it will be years before the next version is available, by which time there will have been plenty of other opportunities to legislate, rather than waste time with this clause. I do not see any need for it, and I invite my colleagues, if our spokesman is so minded, to vote against stand part. 
There is another reason why the clause is dangerous. We are spreading the notion that that piece of plastic is, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central read out from it, a ''Driving Licence''. I would contend that it is not. I know that if I were to ramble on about that stupid bit of blue with yellow stars on it, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Pike, because we would be wandering off the point.

Peter Pike: I would indeed.

David Wilshire: So I shall resist the temptation to say how much I object to having those stupid symbols rather than the union flag on my driving licence.
I have tried to use the card as a driving licence. I was told when I was hiring a vehicle recently that I had to bring my driving licence. As the card says ''Driving Licence'', I took the Government at their word and took it along. I dutifully signed the forms and the vehicle hire company said, ''No, that isn't the driving licence; it's only part of it. We want the piece of paper.'' I said, ''I don't have the piece of paper. I was told that this is the great, wonderful thing that I have to produce.'' ''Oh no,'' they said, ''We now have to ring the DVLA to talk about you. You have to answer the phone, tell them that you are who you say you are and answer a few magic questions. Then they will talk to us. We need either to have sight of that piece of paper, or we have to talk to Swansea. While we're telling you this, you do realise that if we make this call to Swansea we are charged £4.'' 
I had discovered another stealth tax. That was £4 more for the Government's coffers which they got because I believed them when they told me that that was my driving licence, which it patently is not. It is only half a driving licence. If that is what will be handed out when the old ones are called in, it is a load of nonsense. 
I am told by those who know about this—I am pleased to say that I have to take the word of others because I have not been asked to produce my licence  at a police station—that if one goes along and produces the licence as requested, the police say, ''No. That is not enough. That is only half a driving licence.'' The Government are suggesting that in place of the old form of licence, which is only one thing to carry, or lose, and one usually knows where it is, we now have to remember where two things are. That is a crazy arrangement. When the Government get their act together and produce something that is a one-off, there may be an argument for calling in the other ones and replacing them, but at the moment they have not made their case.

Greg Knight: I support my hon. Friend's comments. If a member of the public has a valid permit—an old-type driving licence—and the Government, for whatever reason, want to take it from him to issue a new one, the cost of doing so should be paid out of general taxation, not by the member of the public concerned. I take his point that it would be much easier to understand if the little card had ''Driving Licence part 1'' printed on it and the counterpart document was called ''Driving Licence part 2'', because then people would realise straight away that those two elements constituted the full licence and that they should keep both parts together.
It is also clear from what the Minister said earlier that the Government are not going to replace like with like. If a member of the public with an old-type licence that has 12 years to run sends it in, he will be issued with a new-type licence for 10 years. The licence will last for a shorter term. Why is that the case when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport told us in a previous sitting that he was resisting attempts in Europe to reduce the term of issue of driving licences? The new form of licences run for less time than the old paper types. Why can replacement licences not be issued for the same length of time as the old form of licence? 
I want to raise another point concerning what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, said about the amendments on cross-subsidy. I hope that the Government will think carefully before imposing a cross-subsidy that brings about an annual cost to those whose vehicles are not on the road. There is genuine anger in the classic car movement about the likelihood that the Government will move towards a possession tax. 
 The concern of those who fill in their statutory off-road certificate, which is currently free, to inform the Government that their cars are off the road and not being used is that the DVLA may introduce a fee for doing so. ''Possession tax'' describes the process very well, because people will have pay the state a sum for confirming that they have a vehicle that they are not using which is registered in their name. That is unique to the British world of motoring. There has never before been a situation in which one has to pay anything to the state for owning a car without using it. There is a far stronger case for saying that those who change address and have to notify the authorities should pay rather than subsidise that process by requiring classic car owners to pay an annual fee.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. When I first came to the House, I was told never to believe what Whips said. I was given a message saying that there would be two votes. I have now received another message saying that they might not come together, so I withdraw my first bit of unhelpful advice.

Peter Pike: Thank you.

Greg Knight: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend. Now none of us knows what on earth is going on on the Floor of the House.
The Government would have less of problem with motorists, and I would view the provisions as less objectionable, if they introduced a proper fee structure for the reissuing of licences without trying to do that for free. There should be no cross-subsidy from the owners of vehicles that are not on the road. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on that. A few weeks ago I, together with the hon. Members for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), presented a petition to Downing street. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Greg Knight: A few months ago I, together with two Labour Members, presented a petition to Downing street, objecting to the cross-subsidy idea of a possession tax on motor vehicles. That petition was signed by 50,000 members of the public and by hon. Members of all parties. I do not want this to be a party political issue, but I hope that Ministers, on reflection, will decide against making the owners of vehicles pay an annual possession levy. It is not something that a future Conservative Government would introduce, and I shall be happy to announce on 6 May that it is not part of the new Government's proposals.
I hope that the Minister will think again and look at ways of charging for issuing licences in circumstances in which that is currently free, such as when a person moves house. I would welcome that if it meant shelving the possession tax idea.

Charlotte Atkins: No decisions have been made about the way in which the DVLA will recoup its expenses. One idea is that people should pay for extended licences. Another is the cross-subsidy, including a possible annual possession fee. There is a cost to keeping the statutory off-road notification, and the cost mentioned was relatively modest—something like £4 or £4.50. However, that is only one suggestion. The DVLA was set up as a self-financing organisation.
Various hon. Members said that it is crazy for the Government to introduce an interim arrangement. We are not doing so. There is no suggestion that those who give up a paper licence would do so for a plastic licence card and counterpart. That is not our proposal. The proposal is that those who give up their paper licence would move to the new plastic licence without a  counterpart. The Bill gets rid of the counterpart, so it is not an interim arrangement, and it would not be sensible to have one. 
No decision has been made about whether a charge would be made for replacing a paper licence. Driver licensing must be paid for by fees to the DVLA. The DVLA is engaging with a range of organisations to identify a series of funding options for driving licences and vehicle registration transactions. As it can pool its fees, the DVLA can decide whether they are to be paid for by licences or possession charges, but it is continuing to consult on a range of issues. In the meantime, this is an enabling clause to allow a fee to be charged. 
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill 
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Driver training

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The clause inserts a new power to make regulations. How will those regulations be used?

Charlotte Atkins: The clause amends section 99ZC of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to extend the regulation-making powers to include the provision of information about compulsory driver training courses. It also amends section 173 of the 1988 Act which deals with the offence of forgery of certificates relating to the completion of courses, by replacing references to section 97(3A) and the words
''training course for motor cyclists'', 
with references to section 99ZC(1)(e) and ''driver training course''. 
The clause corrects an oversight when sections 99ZA to 99ZC were introduced by the Transport Act 2000. Basically, it allows the Secretary of State to introduce compulsory driver training courses and authorises him to make available information about persons providing such courses, thus delivering on the  commitment set out in the road safety strategy to ensure that members of the public are better informed about the people who provide training. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Driving instruction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The explanatory notes on clause 32, which gives rise to schedule 4, state:
''driving instructors have to be registered if they give paid instruction of any prescribed description. This enables the existing provision regarding paid driving instruction in the driving of motor cars to be extended, by regulation, to other motor vehicle types in addition to motor cars, for example, driving instruction in respect of lorries, buses and motorcycles.'' 
What is the justification for that extension in regulation? 
 People who run courses for those who wish to get a heavy goods vehicle licence and bus companies that want to train drivers are concerned that their regime would be much better if it were applied to driving instructors—in other words, if driving instructors were deregulated in the same way that their sector is relatively deregulated. However, the Government seem to be going in the opposite direction. They are introducing more controls and are doing so without any justification. 
One of the biggest concerns is the need for people to get quick access to training. If people want to engage in a career change and to train to use a heavy goods vehicle, they want to get that instruction straight away, get their qualification and go on the road. At the moment, as I understand it, there are substantial delays in getting a test for a heavy goods vehicle or a bus. As a result, the potential drivers of those vehicles do not own them themselves and have to hire them from the people who are training them, which creates additional delay and expense. Indeed, there have been cases in which, for no apparent reason, the arranged times for such tests have suddenly been cancelled on the basis that conditions might be slippery. As a consequence, the total cost falls on the individual who is trying to improve his finances by becoming an HGV driver. Hon. Members will be aware of the overall shortage of HGV drivers. With the new drivers hours regulations, there is an even greater need for well qualified HGV drivers. 
Surely we should be deregulating and encouraging more people to go into the business of training lorry drivers. We should also be thinking about deregulating the whole system of lorry driving testing so that it can be carried out close to the time when someone is ready for the test, rather than delaying it for weeks or months, at the behest of the monopoly provider of such services, which is, inevitably, what the agency is. The clause raises some important issues and I would be grateful if the Minister could justify the increased regulation.

Greg Knight: I support my hon. Friend's comments. It is essential that an unnecessary bureaucracy is not created for those who undertake the tests. One complaint has been brought to my attention by a constituent who runs a haulage business. He told me that whenever a driver books in for a test, in addition to revealing the driver's details, which is understandable as the authorities need to know who they are testing, full details of the vehicle that the driver will be using for his test also have to be supplied.
My constituent finds that unnecessarily bureaucratic. Provided that the vehicle is roadworthy and of the relevant class, why do the authorities need to know the specific details of the vehicle that is to be involved in the test? That can create a problem for small businesses if the particular vehicle that they had previously nominated for the test is out on a run and is not back on time. Instead of allowing the test to go ahead with a substitute vehicle, they would have to reschedule the whole thing. That is unnecessarily bureaucratic.

John Thurso: I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike. I have a specific question to ask which relates to this clause, but it falls more properly into schedule 4. Would it be appropriate to ask that question of the Minister now and avoid speaking later?

Peter Pike: We will come to schedule 4 in a couple of minutes.

Charlotte Atkins: The short answer is that the clause is about quality of instruction. It replaces the current one-size-fits-all scheme for car driving instructors with provisions that allow the introduction of flexible and effective standards of insurance for different types of professional instructors. The new provision will allow registration to be extended to professional instructors for any class of motor vehicle. That applies to various circumstances, such as emergency response, remedial training for drivers and HGV training.
The system has been in place for 40 years for car driving instructors. All we are doing is extending it to other classes of instructor. Given that people pay something like £1,500 for HGV training, they need to be assured that that driving instruction is competent and of a good quality. It is a lot of money to pay out and we want to ensure that there are assurances for the HGV driver applicant, just as there would be if our sons and daughters were having driving instruction from a driving instructor in a car. 
I am told that the target waiting time for HGV tests is three weeks. I assume that vehicle details have to be given because we have to be sure that it is an appropriate vehicle in which to take the test. Given that the system has been in place for car driving instructors for 40 years, it makes sense for the regulation to be extended to other classes of driving instructor to ensure that quality prevails.

Christopher Chope: The Minister asserts that because we have had the system for 40 years for car drivers, we should to extend it without further argument. The counter-argument is that we have managed for 40 years without implementing the system for other  categories of vehicle. Have there been any complaints? Is there any reason to suppose that the market is not operating? I would have thought that it would be difficult to establish a business as an HGV driver trainer—most of the training would be for businesses—if one was not reasonably competent at it. What case are the Government putting forward, other than their obsession with increasing regulation?

Charlotte Atkins: We made it clear in our road safety strategy that we wanted to raise standards. The regulation is one way of doing it. We made a commitment to raising standards and raising the status and quality of professional driving instruction. The regulation is the way in which we want to do that.

Christopher Chope: We have heard much from the Minister today, but that was the weakest of her responses. Where is the justification? Where is the evidence that there is any shortage of good quality instruction? This is just another regulation that is being brought in to address some imaginary mischief. If she said that there is evidence that there are a lot of duff HGV driving instructors who are causing danger to others because of their level of incompetence, she might have a case.

Charlotte Atkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: The Minister obviously has some more information.

Charlotte Atkins: It is simply that the industry itself—the road haulage industry, the bus industry, road transport organisations and certainly motorcycling interest groups—fully support the regulation. The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of step with the industry. He may well have evidence to the contrary, but we are responding to the industry by introducing the regulation. If he wants to oppose the interests of the industry, he may proceed. We are trying to ensure that we raise road safety standards. That is what the Bill is about and that is why we are introducing the regulation.

Christopher Chope: The Minister says that the industry is in favour of the regulation, but we have not seen any documentation to suggest that. She has just been given a briefing by her officials saying that it is in favour of it. Let us be clear about this: quite often providers are in favour of introducing restrictions on potential competition. My concern is that this is an activity in which an open market has effectively been operating, with all the flexibility that that entails. We need to get more HGV drivers trained. At the moment, there is no suggestion that anybody involved in the industry is not producing training to the right standard.
One of the biggest constraints that I have heard about is the constraint on the time to get a test. The Minister says that the target waiting time is three weeks. Why is it so long? Why can somebody who has gone on one of these courses not take the test the  following week? Although three weeks is the target waiting time, what happens if the actual waiting time is much longer, as I understand it is in some test centres? Is the individual, who may be unemployed, expected to hang around waiting for this career move until he can get a time for his test? What happens when the tests are cancelled, as they often are, at short notice and must then be rescheduled, again introducing extra delay? Surely the problem with the heavy goods vehicle sector is that there is already too much regulation rather than too little. I am extremely suspicious of this regulation-making power and I am not encouraged in the knowledge that some of those who are already incumbents think that they will be able to use it to further their own interests in a monopoly.

Charlotte Atkins: The fact that only about 50 per cent. pass the HGV licence indicates that there is an issue over the quality of training. We want to ensure that the man or woman who is training as an HGV driver does not waste their £1,500. If someone is unemployed and wants to make that sort of career move, they can hardly afford to let £1,500 go down the drain. Therefore, we are interested in raising the quality of training to help trainees and employers and to ensure that we protect the safety of all road users.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Driving instruction

Amendments made: No. 32, in schedule 4, page 88, line 24, leave out '125A(3)' and insert '125A(7)'. 
No. 33, in schedule 4, page 88, line 26, leave out '125ZA(7)' and insert '125ZA(3)'.—[Mr. Jamieson.] 
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

John Thurso: I am perfectly content with what is being proposed here, but I should be grateful if the Minister answered one question and perhaps put something on the record.
As Ministers know, I had considerable correspondence from advanced driving instructors earlier this year, which I think all worked out happily. However, one thing that I learnt from that  correspondence was the slight concern about what paid instruction is and, in particular, the allegation made at that time by a number of ADIs that unscrupulous people who were not registered were giving instruction to people in cars, and being paid for it. They were getting round the law by setting the transaction as the hire of the vehicle and giving the instruction for free. One or two ADIs said that that was a common way for rogue operators to get away with it. Will the Minister help me as to whether, first, that loophole exists? Are such people in contravention of the law as it stands? Secondly, if it is a loophole, is it closed by the Bill? Thirdly, if it is not being closed, will the Government consider closing it at a future date?

Charlotte Atkins: I do not believe that that loophole exists, although I am sure that any number of unscrupulous people will try to create a loophole. As far as I am aware, the Bill does not close that loophole that does not exist.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister explain how the process will be introduced? At the moment, driving instruction for heavy goods vehicle drivers, bus drivers and the like is unregulated. If, in the future, all the people who can carry out paid instruction have to be subject to the conditions of the schedule, how will we ensure that they have passed the necessary exams and got the qualifications required under the regulations? What is the time scale for that procedure? What is likely to be the cost of undergoing the tests that will be a precursor to obtaining registration? When will a clear regulatory impact assessment with proper costs be produced so that we can assess the implications and the extent to which the measure is an additional burden on business?

Charlotte Atkins: I do not have the details to hand on all those questions. I am not sure whether anyone has any help on that. Clearly, it will be introduced over time. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

Christopher Chope: I do not want to be unfair to the Minister, but she has had much more notice than we have about the contents of schedule 4. Before deciding how to vote on a schedule, it is reasonable to ask when it is proposed that it be brought in, what the implications are and so on. I do not think that any of the questions that I have put to the Minister are unreasonable and I do not think that she thinks that they are unreasonable.
It would be appropriate for the Committee to adjourn so that the Minister can get some instruction on the issue. When will we be able to have a debate, and get answers to those questions, if not during a stand part debate? The situation seems to me unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister now has some more briefing that she will be able to use to inform her response so that we are all a bit wiser about what we are being asked to vote for.

Charlotte Atkins: I do not have a note on the time scale. Clearly the Secretary of State will require professional instructors to undertake training, because that is completely absent from the present scheme.  Training instructors will have to ensure that they maintain and update their knowledge and skills. I do not have a note on when that is likely to take place. We will ensure that we have a full note before the Committee next meets.

Greg Knight: With those remarks, the Minister has pretty much answered the point that I was going to raise. I was going to ask her to undertake to write to all members of the Committee before Report on that point.

Charlotte Atkins: I should be happy to do that.
Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Registration plates

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 34, page 40, line 38, at end add—
 '(1C) Nothing contained herein or in any other statute shall prevent the manufacture, production, sale or display of any black and white registration plate or mark intended for display on a historic vehicle and which is in keeping with the style of registration plates produced when the said vehicle was manufactured.'.
This is a probing amendment, and I hope the Minister will assure the Committee that it is not necessary. Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest; not a financial interest, in the sense that I have a business involved in this area, but more a declaration of passion. I have an interest in historic vehicles, and collect classic cars. Most of them display the old-style non-reflective black-and-white number plates, in keeping with the period when the cars were first manufactured.
My concern is that the new rules in clause 34 might impinge on the current activity of manufacturing registration plates to maintain a supply of the old black-and-white plates. If I take a classic car to a show and it is hit by an incompetent who damages my number plate, I will seek to replace it with a like number plate; that is, a black-and-white one of the type in general use when the vehicle was manufactured. I do not want to be forced into having to affix to an historic vehicle a reflective number plate with a modern typeface. I hope the Minister is able to assure me that the amendment is unnecessary, and that nothing in the Bill will prevent the manufacture, production, sale or display of the old type of number plate.

David Jamieson: Having more than a passing interest in classic cars and vehicles myself, I can give some fairly robust assurance to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. We totally understand the desire of owners of historic vehicles to display number plates in keeping with the historic nature of the vehicle.
Under the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 are allowed to display traditional-style plates with white, silver, light grey or translucent characters on a black background. Businesses that supply such plates must register as number plate suppliers with the DVLA and keep records of sales. They must make statutory checks to establish the entitlement of the customer to buy the plates requested, the reasons for which I am sure hon. Members will understand. Owners of historic vehicles should have no difficulty obtaining the appropriate number plates, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill will prevent them from doing so in the future.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, as will be the hundreds of thousands of historic vehicle owners in all parts of the country. For the first time during our proceedings—but, I hope, not for the last time—he has satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, to which the Minister referred in answer to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, were discussed on the Floor of the House in 2001. During the course of that debate, I clearly recollect the Minister giving undertakings that amendments would be tabled to ensure that the GB symbol could be incorporated on number plates. When I last inquired about that, I was informed that it was taking a long time to draw up the necessary amending regulations, and that in the meantime I should not worry because people could put stickers over their number plate to indicate that it was a GB plate.
As the Minister knows, there is quite a lot of resentment that unless one spells it out to the contrary, the default position of most number plate suppliers is those ghastly stars. Sometimes, people do not realise that they are going to get the stars on their number plate until it is too late, but on a recent occasion when I specified to the vehicle supplier that I wanted a plate without stars and I ended up with a vehicle with stars, I am afraid that that cost the supplier some money, because he had to do it all again in accordance with the instructions I had given.
Some of us take that issue seriously, and the Minister will remember the debate, which was quite heated. The Government came under a lot of pressure to give way on that issue, and in the end they did. It is now three to four years since the debate, and the amendments that we were promised have not been brought forth. Will the Minister use the provisions of this Bill and clause 34 in particular as the means by which the amending regulations are brought forward or included in the Bill? That is another example of where the Government have failed to deliver even in accordance with their own words.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend has partly made one point that I wanted to raise. I hope that we do not move to a situation where we have to have a pseudo-national flag stuck on our vehicles by virtue of those silly little yellow stars. I shall not go too far down that track, other than to say that I am totally opposed to anything that purports to be to do with a united states of Europe, and I do not wish to see it forced on us in any shape or form.
New subsection (1B), which amends section 28 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, says:
 ''The Secretary of State may by regulation provide that the offence under subsection (1A) is not committed in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.''
Reading the explanatory notes, I am concerned that that gives the Secretary of State the right to say, ''Notwithstanding the regulations, I hereby decree that this will not be an offence.''
Another bee in my bonnet is advertising on number plates. I made it my business when I was changing cars to double check exactly what is permitted. In my view, a registration plate should have nothing on it other than the number, but I was told that there had to be a very small identification of its supplier, so that it could be checked. I also discovered that the requirement for a mark indicating who supplied it did not extend to large type underneath, saying, ''Joe Bloggs Ltd. Vauxhall dealers'', which is what tends to appear on number plates. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the Secretary of of State will not succumb to the blandishments of the motor trade and allow adverts on number plates. Whenever I have changed cars, I have always said to the supplier that I would deduct £500 from the purchase price as an advertising fee if he wished to advertise his garage on my number plates. I do not understand why those people should use number plates for free advertising.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that advertising will not become an exception and that the only thing allowed on the number plate will be some very small indication of the supplier. If he went further and said that he will ban the blue flags, I would be even more grateful.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister confirm that nothing in this clause will be retrospective? For example, many plates on motor vehicles do not have the typeface that the Department now prefers, yet the typeface was perfectly legal at the time the plates were produced. Many plates do not state who the supplier was, and some people have preferred to have running along the bottom of the plate their own name or the make and model of their vehicle, for example. Will the Minister confirm that he is not about to start making owners affix to their vehicles new plates if they are not seeking to replace their plate but wish to continue with their existing one, which complied with the law at the time it was issued?

David Jamieson: The clause makes it an offence to supply vehicle number plates that do not comply with regulations on the typeface, dimensions, colouring and British standard. Members of the Committee will know that number plates that are not standard—that have been customised in some way—are often difficult to read. If there has been an accident, or the police want to check up on somebody, it can be difficult to identify people, particularly in the case of hit-and-run accidents, which, sadly, are all too common. It may be difficult to read some number plates in certain circumstances, so there are good reasons for the clause and the new requirements.

Christopher Chope: Does that apply to foreign vehicles? For example, if a foreign lorry with one of those very small, unreadable number plates is involved in an accident that results in a number plate being damaged, would the replacement number plate installed by a British supplier have to be of a size that conforms with the standard that we regard as essential in this country?

David Jamieson: Only if the vehicle were then being registered in this country. After 12 months, it would have to be registered in this country and, obviously, the number plate would have to comply with regulations. If the vehicle is registered in another country and is only here for short periods of time, it does not need to have a British registration mark but would have to provide one from the country of origin.

Christopher Chope: Why is it that we allow foreign vehicles to have indistinguishable number plates while we impose draconian penalties, not only on the people who are using number plates that do not comply with our own regulations but on those who supply them?

David Jamieson: I suppose that if British vehicles were driven in mainland Europe or other parts of the world, people might think that our number plates were fairly indistinguishable. I agree that ours generally look extremely clear, especially if one is British and used to them.
We are trying to achieve some commonality within the European Union, which makes sense. Common recognition of plates would be better for enforcing the law within the Union. However, at present, there is no question of the 25 countries in the Union having totally standardised plates.

Christopher Chope: I know that the Minister is very tolerant, but is he intolerant of the officials and, perhaps, his colleagues from other parts of the UK for having stalled the implementation of the changes that were promised—in good faith, I am sure—to the House of Commons in 2001? It is now 2005; when will that issue be brought to a conclusion?

David Jamieson: I am somewhat impatient, but the matter has to be resolved fully and properly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk in further detail about that, I shall happily do so, but I do not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne quite properly made the point that we do not want number plates to have a plethora of information on them, other than that needed to identify the vehicle and the supplier of the plate, which is not necessarily the dealer that sold the vehicle. I am anxious that we do not have a lot of clutter on plates; only information that is absolutely essential.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, with all of his knowledge on such matters, may know of certain show plates, which people might want to put on their bedroom wall or wherever and are not intended for a motor vehicle. Goodness knows why people want those, but they certainly do. Those will have to be clearly marked ''not suitable to go on a vehicle'' or words to that effect, demonstrating that they are not legal plates to use on a vehicle. There is quite a market in these, and we do not want to spoil it. However, we do not want a loophole to appear so that those plates can appear on vehicles.

John Thurso: I wonder whether the Minister would clarify what he said about show plates. Coming from an agricultural part of the world, I notice that many tractors like to have the proper legal plates fore and aft, while often in the cab there will be a plate with the name of the farm or the driver. Are those show plates illegal, or is it legal to have them in the cab? Does the legislation affect them?

David Jamieson: I have no doubt that that should be legal. In such cases, having a proper number plate in the proper place on the vehicle is different from having something that looks a little like a number plate but clearly is not. There are certain number plates containing digits and letters that make up someone's name, for example, that could be a real number plate. If it had ''Farmer Giles's Farm'' on it, no one could mistake it for a real number plate, but there are some plates that actually look like someone's name. We want those clearly marked, so that they could not be taken from the cab and used on the vehicle. Of course, if the vehicle is used entirely off the road, there is nothing to stop someone putting those plates on it.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire wants to know whether the provision will be retrospective. It will not be, so people's existing plates will not be affected. It is a good and useful little clause, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who represents a Scottish constituency—if not half of Scotland—wishes to join the debate. It is quite a significant move, in so far as we are legislating for Scotland and Northern Ireland in one clause in a substantial way without there being any Scottish Minister present to explain the implications. I would be interested to know what consultation there has been about the extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the way suggested in the clause.

John Thurso: That is a straightforward question. The proper convention would be the Sewel convention of the Scottish Parliament, where devolved legislation is being enacted at Westminster, as this would appear to be. Can the Minister confirm that there is or is likely to be a Sewel on this clause?

David Jamieson: This is quite an important little clause. At present, particularly in the north of England, it is possible to trot across the border and get oneself a number plate, without having to show one's own identification or the identification on the vehicle, which is a bit of a loophole. That is also true of Northern Ireland. It is particularly a problem in the border area, because one set of rules applies south of the border and another north of the border.
Originally it was thought that the Bill was a devolved matter. Sometimes, because of the complexities between various parts of the United Kingdom, the talents of those who draw up the laws are extended. However, we know now that it is a reserved matter for Westminster. It is simply a matter of bringing Scotland and Northern Ireland into line. It is my understanding that separate consultation exercises have been conducted in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in both instances the proposal to extend the regulation of number plate suppliers was well received and generally well supported. Therefore, it is simply a matter of closing a loophole. I think that there was a misinterpretation in the first instance. It is  important that the need to check up when one buys a number plate appertains to all parts of the United Kingdom.

John Thurso: I have no problem if this is a reserved matter. I did not bring my well-thumbed copy of the Scotland Act with me, so I cannot look at schedule 5 and the headings therein to check whether what the Minister has said is accurate. However, I know that there is considerable confusion on occasions between Westminster and Holyrood; Holyrood seems to think that things are devolved and Westminster seems to think that they are not. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, but could he let me know the precise heading under which the Bill is deemed to be reserved rather than devolved. At first glance it falls into the category of justice—perhaps if I keep going for a moment, he will be inspired—which is broadly a devolved matter. It is important that, were a Sewel required, the convention is adhered to.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister confirm that no discussions are taking place that seek to extend the rules on number plates beyond these islands? Will he confirm, for example, that no discussions are taking place in the European Union to harmonise vehicle registration plates across the EU?

David Jamieson: I am told that no Sewel motion is required, because this is deemed, as a reserved matter, to be for Westminster. It has been agreed that it is a reserved matter. I think that there was some discussion as to whether it was or was not, but now it has been accepted on both sides of the border that it is, so it does not attract the attentions of a Sewel motion.
I have entirely forgotten what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said.

Greg Knight: My question was about Europe and the harmonisation of registration plates.

David Jamieson: There is absolutely no discussion of this matter, certainly on format and presentation. We are considering how we can recognise another country's plates, which is much more important. I am not sure that harmonisation takes us any further forward. What is important is that an automatic number plate recognition camera can pick up the various number plates from other countries in the European Union and vice versa; that other countries can pick up ours. That is far more important than harmonisation.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Particulars to be included in vehicles register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Why is this requirement being extended to keepers of vehicles rather than just applying to buyers and sellers as is currently the case? If the  purpose is to ensure that when vehicles change hands there is a record of the odometer reading, what difference does it make if the vehicle is being used by a whole host of different people, but has not actually changed hands? Surely the significant time and the point at which fraud arises is when somebody sells a vehicle with a reading that is inaccurate. It would be the owner of the vehicle who sold it, and the previous owner of the vehicle who sold it before that. Why should the keeper of the vehicle be under any obligation to keep the DVLA informed of the odometer reading in the interim period?

David Jamieson: The intention is that when a vehicle changes hands from one keeper to another a record of the odometer reading—not the mileometer reading—is passed on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable fraud involving turning back the clocks on vehicles. That is an old practice and I am afraid that it has not been made any more difficult by the modern digital odometers. In fact, the other day I passed—I think that it was on the A40—a little sign that said that if anybody wanted their odometer attended to, they could ring that number. It seemed to me it that was just trying to attract somebody who wanted to turn the odometer back 50,000 miles and probably add a couple of thousand pounds to the value of the vehicle.
That is what the measure is intended to address. It is a good measure, and intended for the changeover point between one vehicle keeper and another. There is not necessarily any point in informing the DVLA, except when a car is going for an MOT test, at which point the reading is routinely recorded. In the case of cars that are younger than three years, people would not need to inform the DVLA, unless the car was changing ownership.

Greg Knight: I understand why the Minister wants to do that. Will he tell the Committee whether he anticipates the Department being proactive when this information is required to be recorded, or whether it will be reactive?
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Greg Knight: Does the Minister think that the DVLA will be proactive as a matter of practice? If it receives information that a vehicle's mileage has gone down, will it take action or will it wait for a new purchaser to make a complaint?

David Jamieson: Having this information available on the record will be useful in two respects. If the DVLA spots that a vehicle's mileage has gone backwards over a period of time, it will set alarm bells ringing. It will want to check why that vehicle has gone several thousand miles or more backwards, which could occasion enforcement action.

Greg Knight: Does the Minister accept that there may be some cases in which a reduction in mileage is innocent? A friend of mine used to run—he may still run it—a Rover P5B 3.5 litre coupe, which was the same model of Rover car that Harold Wilson used when he was Prime Minister. The speedometer on the vehicle ceased to work. He could not buy a new one, but he managed to obtain a working replacement speedometer from a scrap yard which allowed him to continue to run the car. However, the mileage was different.

David Jamieson: In such a case, the DVLA would have to make checks with the person, who would have to present some evidence that they had done that. In any case, if someone changes the speedometer with the odometer reading, he would be advised to obtain some evidence at the time, either from the dealer or someone else, to show that he had made that change so that he had the necessary documentation.
There is an important extra check that will help the person buying the vehicle. If the car has changed hands before and the documentation has the odometer reading from the last time, the person can look at the odometer in the vehicle and, if he sees that it has gone backwards or done a low mileage that the customer suspects is not right, he will have the opportunity to back out of the deal. 
The clause also gives dealers an opportunity to do checks when vehicles are brought into them. They are canny operators and are not going to buy vehicles that they think are clocked. It is not in their interests to do so because they will pay more for those vehicles. For the person buying the car, it is worth checking with a company such as HPI, Experian or Carwatch UK, who will, for a fee, check whether there is any outstanding hire purchase, whether the vehicle has been written off and so on. Such information, including the odometer reading, will be contained in a readout and is useful for someone who is investing from a few hundred to many thousands of pounds on a vehicle. 
What makes me cross is that the people who lose out are the little people, which is why I want the provision. They are often the poorest people and are buying cheap cars. Often, they are youngsters buying their first car. Those people buy in good faith, either privately or from an unscrupulous dealer. They pay good money that they have saved up from their low income, only to find that someone has clocked the car and they have paid £1,000 more than it is worth. A dealer in the west country set my pulse racing. He had made millions by clocking cars and selling them for more than they were worth. Those cars were mainly at the lower end of the market and went to people on a low income. That is why the issue is so important. 
There tends to be less of a problem at the quality end of the car market, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire knows, because the service record often contains all that information. However, at the cheap end of the market, that information is often not there.  The clause offers a good bit of consumer protection and I hope that the Committee will give its full support to the clause. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Disclosure to foreign authorities of licensing and registration information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I want assurances from the Minister that nothing in the clause will lead to the Secretary of State or any Department releasing or passing on any part of a driver's record. Does he envisage the power being used to assist a foreign Government who have no reciprocal arrangement with us? Does he imagine that the clause will be used to supply information to them as a one-way process? Will it be used only where there is an intergovernmental agreement?

David Jamieson: The clause will enable the DVLA and its counterpart in Northern Ireland, the DVLANI, to disclose information regarding driver licensing and vehicle registration to overseas counterparts. That statutory authority will enable the UK to ratify the treaty on European vehicle registration and driver licensing information systems known, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, as EUCARIS. It was signed by the UK, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands on 29 June 2000.
The treaty is designed to facilitate the exchange of information on driver licensing and vehicle registration to reduce cross-border crime and improve road safety. Disclosure of the licensing and registration information will make it much more difficult for criminals to reregister stolen vehicles or commit other vehicle-related offences and to obtain British driving licences to which they have no entitlement. We want to ratify the measure in our law because we want the treaty to come into effect. The relationships with various countries will gradually build up and we will have more comprehensive information. I shall get hold of something intelligible on the subject of what the DVLA can disclose and pass that information on to the Committee. 
As I understand it, the arrangement is bilateral and only there for those countries with which we have such agreements. The right hon. Gentleman can see the huge advantage of such an exchange throughout the European Union, because that is where most of the inter-country traffic comes from. The arrangement will have a huge benefit because it does not affect law-abiding people, only those who try to slip around the law.

Christopher Chope: Does the provision deal with protection from data being leaked by foreign organisations? As I understand it, the rationale is that, because the DVLA is registered as a data controller, it could pass such data on to foreign organisations. What protection does the British driver have against the misuse of information, in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK, by a foreign body that has been given information by the DVLA?
The Minister listed the original signatories to the agreement. It is significant that France, Spain, Italy and Germany—the big boys in European road transport—were not included. When does he expect to enter into agreements with those countries so that we can get access to information from them about their vehicles and their drivers?

David Jamieson: Germany was one of the original signatories.
Any country with which we exchange such information must have tight systems for the release of that information. That is part of the agreement we are making within the European Union and, in a small way, it cracks down on some of the inter-border crime. The principles in the Data Protection Act will be transferred to other countries to ensure that information which we do not want released is not improperly released to third parties. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: Before I call the next amendment, I will try and focus minds on the situation. We have had several Divisions. We also lost an hour due to Divisions on the Floor of the House, so we have had some exercise. I know there is a wish to leave Thursday's two sittings for the new clauses and to complete the main part of the Bill—the clauses and schedules—today. If the Committee feels we could do that by 6 o'clock, I will not adjourn for a tea break. If the Committee is not happy with that, I will adjourn for a tea break at 5.30 pm and we will have to come back. I am trying to be helpful. Is there a feeling we can finish by 6 o'clock?

Christopher Chope: That is very helpful. Obviously, for the sake of 10 minutes or quarter of an hour, I hope we will not have to adjourn for an hour and a half, but I am conscious of the fact, as you will have seen this afternoon, that the debates on individual issues sometimes take longer because of the responses, or lack of them, that we get. There is no guarantee that we will finish by 6 o'clock, although we might if all goes well, but hopefully we will do so within a reasonable period thereafter.

Peter Pike: Let us see how we go. We will try and work to that. I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. I have made it quite clear that if the Committee wants a tea break and a dinner break and to go on until midnight, it is fully entitled to do so, since I have no wish to curtail the debate. We will work on that basis.

Clause 39 - Disclosure of information about insurance status of vehicles

Question proposed,, That the clause stand part of the debate.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 66. If there is a debate now, I will put the stand part question with the question formally on amendment No. 66 when we reach it in, I hope, not too long a time.

Christopher Chope: How will the clause work in practice? It talks about a register of people who have the right to drive a vehicle and are covered for insurance against third-party risks. Obviously, many of those people can drive vehicles of which they are not the main keeper or the owner as a result of the conditions set out in their insurance, which says that they can drive the car for which they are insured and the vehicle belonging to someone else with their permission, but if they do so they will be insured only for third-party risks.
Let me give a practical example. If I drive my wife's car using my own insurance, how is the information that it is insured for third-party risks conveyed to the register? We have a different system from the continent. In this country, it is the driver rather than the vehicle that is insured.

David Jamieson: Clause 50 that the disclosure of information, under clause 39, about the insurance state of vehicles extends only to England and Wales. That is an error, as it should provide that clause 39 extends to England, Wales and Scotland. So here we go again, Mr. Pike. Amendment No. 66 rectifies that error by providing that the clause extends to England, Wales and Scotland.
In layperson's terms, clause 39 ensures that the police have a database showing vehicles that are no longer insured. Through the automatic number plate reading system, they can pick up the vehicles on the database that are actually on the road. The police officer does not have to stop the vehicle to do that. He can do it using new technology. 
As for the example given by the hon. Member for Christchurch, there is usually a condition that one cannot drive another car unless somebody else has insurance on that vehicle. One of the conditions of driving somebody else's car is that it has current insurance. It cannot be a vehicle that has no insurance. For the time that someone drives the insured vehicle, any claim would be made against his insurance rather than the keeper or owner of the vehicle who had taken out separate insurance. He may be driving the car and, although he has insurance that covers him for driving other vehicles, unless valid insurance is held on that car by somebody else, he may be driving uninsured. 
The police, through the ANPR, would pick up those vehicles that did not have specific insurance on them. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is an excellent method for the police to dispose quickly of  those people who are insured. They would not have to bother with them, but the people who are not insured would be picked up rapidly and brought to book. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Motorway picnic areas etc.

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 40, page 46, line 18, at end insert—
'(aa) in subsection (3) (power to manage), after ''picnic area'' insert ''(including, in particular, by enforcing controls on parking there and recovering the costs of doing so)'','.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 51.

David Jamieson: Amendment No. 50 concerns section 112 of the Highways Act 1980, which deals with the Secretary of State's power to manage picnic areas. Public areas beside motorways will be designed to provide motorists with the opportunity to take a short break in the course of their journey. The Secretary of State is already able to limit the stays at picnic sites as part of his general power to manage sites. However, some individuals may wish to use these sites on a long-term basis. The picnic area would then be unavailable for the legitimate use of motorists. There may also be a risk of damage to the facilities on the site.
The proposed amendment would strengthen the Secretary of State's power by allowing the enforcement of waiting restrictions by removing vehicles and the recovery of costs of doing so. The power will extend to all trunk road picnic sites, not just those on motorways. Amendment 51 is a consequential amendment to the title of the clause; a motorway is a trunk road but a trunk road is not necessarily a motorway. The amendments strengthen the clause but this clause is necessary to ensure that we can remove people who want to squat on the site for long periods of time.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister let us have a list of trunk road picnic sites? We are obviously familiar with the motorway service area network, but there is no list of trunk road picnic sites that I am aware of, and they would be affected by this amendment. I understand if the list is not immediately available, but it would be useful to have such a list, with which we could inform the motoring public.

David Jamieson: If such a list existed I would make it available to the hon. Gentleman. Some of the sites are privately owned. These usually tend to be picnic sites/cafes. I will look into it to see if there is anything that we can provide that will be of any help. But as I understand it, there is no list of these sites available. Once we start experimenting with bringing these in on motorways it will be a different matter. Of course the  sites by motorways will have to be controlled much more rigorously owing to the nature of the road and the regulations that go with it.
Amendment agreed to. 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: This is a very significant clause in the Bill. The problem of people killing or injuring themselves or others through fatigue on the motorways is desperately serious and has been the subject of an important survey by the advanced drivers association. It has also been the subject of a lot of concern and coroners' inquests and so on. The Minister is proposing, under the powers being taken in this clause, to have one—and I emphasise one—experimental picnic area which might be up and running by 2008. That is a pretty inadequate response to what is an issue of growing concern among those interested in road safety.
My next point is that, as I understand it, there has been no consultation on this with the existing motorway service area providers. If these picnic areas were to be set up they would be competing with the existing motorway service areas. It may well be that the existing motorway service area providers would be in a strong position to build, design and commission picnic areas if they were given a bit more flexibility to enable them to do so. At the moment, establishing a new motorway service area costs the best part of £25 million. About 80 per cent. of that is the cost of constructing the exit from the motorway, the slip road back on to it, the hard standing and surface areas, lavatories and so on. The other 20 per cent. is the cost of providing the other facilities, such as the food, restaurants or amusement arcades. 
The Minister will remember the initiative taken by the Conservative Prime Minister, the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, under the citizen's charter. Establishing more frequent stopping places on motorways was one of the first initiatives under that charter.

David Jamieson: What did they do about it?

Christopher Chope: As a result of that, quite a lot of extra motorway service areas were constructed, with the emphasis on 15-mile rather than 30-mile intervals. However, the Minister will know that, under his Government, there has been a substantial tail-off in the development of motorway service areas. I think that only one can be described as being anywhere near the M25, so there is still a big gap on the M25, and there are gaps on other roads. Meanwhile, a highly competitive industry with a great deal of expertise in providing motorway service areas wonders why there has been no consultation with it about this proposal and why it will not be involved in the delivery of new areas, instead of it going back in-house as the Minister suggests.
While the Minister is thinking about improving the attractiveness of stopping places on the motorway so that motorists suffer less fatigue, can he think about the need to deregulate some of the existing rules relating to motorway service areas, which inhibit the operators' ability to develop them in accordance with popular demand? Members of the motorway service area industry have made a range of suggestions. I shall not go into them now, but they are designed to ensure that motorway service areas are more attractive places to stop and more in keeping with the needs of the modern travelling public. It is their belief that the number of people who would stop on the motorway for a rest and/or refreshment would be significantly increased if the service areas were made more attractive. They think that that might be a better, more direct and quicker way of increasing the number of people who stop on motorways for a rest than the establishment of just one new picnic area.

Greg Knight: I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but my hon. Friend should give some of the examples of red tape that currently exist. Doing so may mean that some of the more enlightened Labour Members decide to support his argument; I am thinking in particular of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). As I understand it, currently, a budget hotel situated in a motorway service area cannot serve alcohol with a resident's dinner. It is one of the restrictions. A person cannot have a glass of wine with their meal if they stay at a hotel in a motorway service area. Surely that is ridiculous. I also understand that there are restrictions on the size of the trading area. I think that it is restricted to 5,000 sq ft. Why is it not 15,000 sq ft, to make the areas more attractive and to encourage drivers to stop more frequently? Those points are essential to my hon. Friend's case.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for informing me of his concern about this issue. He has mentioned a couple of examples. I will mention another; signage. Sometimes when people are on the motorway they want to get information about what is available at a motorway service area. One of the most important things is the price of petrol. Invariably, motorway service area signs used to show the price of petrol, but that seems to have fallen into desuetude  recently, meaning that motorists are in the dark about whether they will get a good bargain on the petrol price if they go into that service area.

Adrian Flook: No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that something like 45 per cent. of motorists leave the motorway to find the services that they want, yet it would appear that 23 per cent. of all motorway accidents occur at sliproads and junctions. Motorists are leaving the motorway to find services. Does he not think that we should be doing what we can to keep them on the motorway by making motorway service areas much more appealing and not just by having picnic areas?

Christopher Chope: I take my hon. Friend's point, which is a good one. We are talking about trying to make the existing motorway service areas more attractive. If we set up more picnic areas, we will be creating more entrances and exits on to the motorway, with the attendant problems for road safety that he has identified. I will give an example relating to signage. At the moment, there is no provision for a sign to indicate what range of facilities is available at a particular motorway service area. Some of them get round that by allowing enormous Burger King signs to sprout up, which are normally visible when the leaves are off the trees, but that is not really the right way forward. It would be much better if motorway service area operators were able to advertise the range of facilities on offer in good time on the motorway so that people could see what they wanted to get.
Another issue is the fact that there are few specialist facilities for heavy goods vehicles at motorway service areas. I know that motorway service area operators would like to open specially designed driver lounges for HGV drivers, with vending machines, amusement machines, large-screen televisions and upgraded shower facilities. They also want to increase the amount of parking space available to hauliers. There are lots of ideas coming from the motorway service area industry, but, as I understand it, no discussion is taking place between the industry and the Government. The Conservative Government deregulated the system to an extent, and we certainly encouraged greater provision and more competition. We think that the time is now ripe for further encouraging developments through deregulation. We are not at all sure that just allowing the provision of one new picnic area, possibly in the south-west quadrant of England, would be the answer. In fact, we are absolutely certain that it would not be the answer. We would like more specialist, proper provision that would incorporate the ability to get refreshments as well as just park up. 
There has always been a big argument against unmanned picnic areas on motorways. They may be all right in the summer months and during daylight hours, but many people, particularly lone drivers, will feel intimidated by the prospect of using them at other times. Do we really think that we can encourage them to stop at such areas?

Adrian Flook: It is interesting that I, as the MP for Taunton, am one of the few MPs who represents a motorway service area. Across the whole of the south-west, there are only 10 such areas; it seems that there are few of them along the M5 and the M4, which are in a region that contains 50-odd constituencies with millions of people. The Library tells me that there are nine motorway service areas for the 165 miles between Taunton and central London; roughly one every 20 miles. Put that way, it would seem that there are a number of motorway service areas.
It is surprising, therefore, that we should be discussing the need for so-called French aires and the regularity with which the Government want to place them along those 20 miles between service stations. I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed that point. New aires would impact considerably on motorway service areas. Under their service obligations, and where space allows, they provide rest facilities free of charge to the road user as part of their tenant agreement with the Highways Agency. How would new aires impact on the contractual obligations that the motorway service area owners already have and will continue to have with the Government? As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it is of great concern that clause 40 has been introduced without any consultation with or notification to the service area operators. 
Mr. Jamieson indicated dissent.

Adrian Flook: The Minister shakes his head. No doubt he will want to answer that point.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman will have read in the notes that no commercial enterprise will be allowed in the aires. On that basis, how does his argument stand up? The operators of commercial properties will lose only people who might have used some of their facilities but not paid for anything. Anybody who wants to buy something will still have to go to them, as the aires will not have anything to buy.

Adrian Flook: I appreciate that the aires will have no commercial standing. By the same token, I look at the matter from the view of the taxpayer and those who seek to ensure that the taxpayer does not lose out. As my hon. Friend also said, there will be considerable cost in building the aires. The fact that there are motorway service areas every 20 miles or so on the M5 and the M4—just to take two motorways that, unfortunately, I know rather well—would indicate that the taxpayer will have to pay exceptionally high costs for increased motorway safety, when safety areas already exist.
If the Minister addressed those points, it would be most kind of him. The best partners to work with the Government would appear to be the operators. Those who have spoken to me think that they have not been fully consulted about the road safety initiatives. No doubt the Minister has travelled extensively in Europe, where he will have seen these aires. What discussions have his civil servants had with the French authorities and elsewhere in Europe as to how they work; the costs and information associated with putting them into operation; and how they cut down on accidents and injuries?

David Jamieson: The clause amends section 112 of the Highways Act 1980 to enable the Secretary of State to provide picnic sites on land adjoining or in the vicinity of motorways and to enter into arrangements with a council for the provision of facilities at such sites. The Secretary of State will also be able to provide public sanitary conveniences on land adjoining the motorway.
I should like to pick up some of the points made. The hon. Member for Christchurch made a point about fatigue on motorways, as did the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). This is an important issue, because on motorways and the major trunk roads it is probable that up to 20 per cent. of all casualties are caused by people who are over-fatigued and fall asleep at the wheel of their vehicle. When it is a heavy vehicle the consequences can be extremely severe.

Andy Reed: I wanted to make a contribution to the debate because I fully support the idea. In view of the length of the contributions so far, I shall keep it short. Loughborough sleep research centre has carried out a great deal of work in the area. Does the Minister agree that this is about driver choice? I thought that we all had an agenda to increase driver choice and have aire-type facilities for people such as ourselves who have young families and do not want a large motorway station, where a quick drop-off point would make an enormous difference to the number of people willing to stop more often. Research has shown that fatigue is extremely important in terms of causing fatal and other accidents on motorways, so this provision is to be welcomed rather than whinged about, which is what we seem to have done so far.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend is right. We appreciate the work that has been carried out by the University of Loughborough, which has helped to inform much of our policy making in this area. We are not creating competition for the motorway service areas; this provision complements, and is not meant to supplant, the work that they do. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that it costs about £25 million to provide a site. I think that I pay a large chunk of that every time I buy a cup of tea or coffee in one of them. The prices are generally high because of the facilities that they have to operate 24 hours a day.
How they are going to be operated is a matter for further discussion. We were asked about France. Yes, we have been talking with the French ministry of transport on the operation and costs of running the aires. The hon. Member for Taunton and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised the running costs. We anticipate that the annual running and maintenance costs will be about £300,000 a year. That will be borne by the taxpayer. The toilets will be cleaned regularly. There will be a presence on the sites some of the time. The managing agents of the motorway, who are regularly patrolling for other reasons, will be calling in. We could have CCTV and so on to make sure that the sites are not being abused.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons that the costs of these service areas have gone up so much is because prior to 1992 they could be built on seven or eight acres of land, but since 1992 it has been a requirement that the minimum land take should 25 acres? Can he tell us what size land-take he has in mind for these picnic areas?

David Jamieson: The picnic areas will be substantially smaller than that. An area of about 4 or 5 acres might be more appropriate. We have not made a final decision on that, but that is the sort of figure that we have in mind. The picnic areas are not going to be huge or expansive, but they will be appropriate for light use for short periods by people who want to pull in.

Greg Knight: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, I hope that he will refer to the regulation that covers motorway service areas. Is he intending to address that issue? The reason that he pays so much for his cup of coffee is, as I understand it, that motorway service areas have to keep all their facilities open for 24 hours a day, even in quiet periods. Why are they not allowed to shut down part of their facilities at known quiet periods? That would result in a saving of staff costs.

David Jamieson: We are supposed to be discussing picnic areas, but find ourselves discussing motorway service areas. I do not want to stray into that too much. We have been considering that issue closely with the motorway service area operators, the RAC and the AA. As yet, we have not made any further decisions.
I was asked about planning consents. The motorway service areas will be subject to the usual planning consents that anything that we implement on the side of the road is subject to. 
The hon. Member for Taunton will appreciate that, particularly in the west country, there is at times a heavy load of holiday traffic on the motorway. With the economy in this country doing so well, many people are taking short breaks or summer holidays and travelling to Cornwall and Devon to enjoy the wonderful countryside and the sea. More people are travelling, so we need alternatives to motorway service areas where people can stretch their legs, get the children out of the car and run the dog for a few minutes. It will be a small but important addition to road safety.

Adrian Flook: The Minister—a Devon MP—once again referred to the west country without mentioning Somerset. My real point is about the service stations, such as they are. Has a detailed report, or any report, been commissioned as to where there is a need for these areas? Does a report exist?

David Jamieson: Once the Bill is through Parliament we will consider that carefully. I did not mention Dorset, Avon or Wiltshire either, but there we are. There has been particular growth of traffic because of the need for tourists in those areas and for economic reasons. The clause is an excellent little one and will be welcomed by motorists in the years to come.

Christopher Chope: I do not often call the Minister complacent because I think that he takes the issue of road safety seriously, as do most members of the Committee. However, on this issue he has a bit of a blind spot. I do not know whether he received the letter from RoadChef that all other members of the Committee received. On 7 January 2005, RoadChef said,
 ''We are concerned that this legislation has been put forward without any consultation or notification to motorway service area operators.'' 
I do not know whether that was a figment of RoadChef's imagination, but that was what it said on 7 January. RoadChef is the third largest motorway service area operator in the country, trading from 20 sites and representing about one quarter of the market. It is its view that the establishment of unmanned picnic sites is unlikely to help reduce the number of deaths associated with fatigue on journeys at night, as drivers will be reluctant to stop at sites where refreshments such as coffee are unavailable. The Minister has not addressed that issue. 
The Minister has also not addressed the issue as to why, if there is an obligation on motorway service area providers to provide existing rest areas for no charge on their existing sites, it is impossible to give them an option. We could say to them, ''We need to build some smaller picnic areas in the vicinity of your motorway service area and we will give you the first option to  develop those areas. We will have a competitive tender to see which bid will result in the least cost to the taxpayer.'' 
We are talking about people who have built up an enormous amount of expertise and experience in providing and looking after motorway service areas and all the Government are talking about is having a few picnic areas on sites that unspecified at the moment and on which people will not be doing any selling or providing any refreshments. That is different even from the sites on trunk roads, to which the Minister referred earlier, where there are often facilities—perhaps a caravan—where somebody can sell people a cup of coffee. 
In the light of the research from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, clause 40 is not an answer to the serious problem of road safety. We hope that following this debate the Minister will consult the motorway services operators and come up with a better solution to this real problem. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Drivers' hours: enforcement

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in schedule 5, page 102, line 9, leave out 'vehicle' and insert 'premises'.
This amendment corrects a typographical error. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 63, in schedule 5, page 104, line 23, after 'section', insert 
'consisting otherwise than in permitting an act or omission'.—[Mr. Jamieson] 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming— 
Amendments made: 
No. 64, in schedule 5, page 104, line 27, leave out from 'both' to end of line 30 and insert— 
 '(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) of this section consisting in permitting an act or omission is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'. 
No. 65, in schedule 5, page 104, line 48, leave out from 'exceeding' to end of line 1 on page 105 and insert 
'level 5 on the standard scale.'. 
—[Mr. Jamieson] 
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the fifth schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: May I ask whether there is any restriction on what a driver does in his own time after driving? If a driver gets to the maximum permitted hours after which he is supposed to take a rest period and drives, but not in connection with his work, so it is not recorded by a tachograph, does he commit an offence?

David Jamieson: As I understand it, he does not. We would expect a driver who had been driving the requisite number of miles to take a break by having a meal, or a nap. We would not want to prevent someone from taking a short journey home in their car because it would not be part of their working time, as covered by the directive. It would, however, be a matter of concern if someone was driving three or four hours after they had done their professional driving.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 - Vehicles modified to run on fuel stored under pressure

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Liquefied petroleum gas has become a very fashionable fuel. Those who have had their vehicles converted to run on LPG might be slightly concerned to read about the explosions that can result from unsatisfactory conversions. The Government's remedy is a testing regime for such adaptations
An alternative might be to ensure that those who perform the adaptations are qualified in accordance with a Government standard. Will the Minister explain the Government's approach? People will have their vehicles converted by someone whom they believe to be a reputable converter, and have them inspected by one of the new Government-appointed inspectors. The inspectors—especially those with a commercial interest in carrying out modifications—might have a motive for saying that the work had not been done properly and that something should be done to modify it. That will add cost and delay for people who wish to have their vehicles converted to LPG. 
The initial idea was that the Government should offer people incentives to convert their vehicles to LPG, and it is expected that there will be as many as 100,000 LPG-powered vehicles on our roads by the end of the decade. If so, that will be a useful contribution to the environment, but I am not sure that the Government's solution will encourage people to convert to LPG; indeed, it might have the opposite effect. 
If, as the notes on clauses and the regulatory impact assessment make clear, vehicles that have been modified to run on LPG, but have not been modified adequately, are a danger on the roads, how can we be sure that foreign vehicles that have been so modified are not on our roads and a danger to other road users?

David Jamieson: The clause amends sections 41 and 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It would enable the introduction of mandatory quality checks on vehicles whose fuel systems had been modified to run on fuels stored under pressure, such as LPG or compressed natural gas. It would then be an offence to keep or use on the road a vehicle that had not been modified to the required standards. The new requirements could also be enforced through the vehicle licensing regime.
The Department and the LPG industry have been concerned that, although many conversions have been good, some might not meet, first, the safety standards and, secondly, some of the air pollution standards. They might not have any real environmental benefit, in spite of the fact that the Treasury is giving substantial fiscal assistance for the purchase of LPG-powered vehicles. 
We do not want too heavy a regime. About 100,000 vehicles have been converted, and more are being converted all the time. However, it is difficult to know how many have been converted, because people do not have to notify us. We want to ensure that, once vehicles have been converted, they are tested. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Christchurch advocate more regulation and more garage inspection, but he is clearly a convert to our cause on some of these matters. We want to ensure that a customer can be sure that a conversion has meets a high standard and is safe.

Greg Knight: Why are some of the words in the clause in italics?

David Jamieson: I knew the answer to that, because I asked that question. I have forgotten what answer I was given. My amnesia has left me and the answer has come back in a flash of inspiration. It is a long-standing tradition that finance issues appear in italics. We live and learn.
We are trying to stop vehicles coming on to the road that might present a danger. Although LPG is under pressure, it does not constitute a greater danger. I am not sure that today we would authorise light steel tanks that can easily be ruptured in a crash and contain a highly volatile material—petrol. The LPG tank, and certainly the CNG tank, is much stronger than a petrol tank and much less likely to rupture in a crash. It is a matter of ensuring that dangerous vehicles do not go on the road. 
We have no specific control over foreign vehicles coming in, but the French and Dutch inspection systems have been much more rigorous than ours for some time. LPG vehicles are allowed on ferries but I believe that Eurotunnel does not allow them to use the tunnel, although some are asking whether that regulation can be lifted.

Christopher Chope: Are we allowed to take such vehicles into the House of Commons car park?

David Jamieson: It is perfectly in order to take such vehicles into the House of Commons car park. Many ministerial cars are converted to LPG, and there is no danger. However, in the channel tunnel it was considered that there might be a danger from the release of gas. I am not sure how real that is, but the  company might want to revisit the matter in the future. A ruptured petrol tank is probably the most dangerous thing that can happen in a crash. CNG is under huge pressure and, if it escaped, it would plume upwards and outwards and be gone, whereas petrol rests on the floor and can incinerate the vehicle and people in the vicinity.
Clause 42 is a simple measure. It is welcomed by the industry and it will add a little more to safety on our roads.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Committee that the first ministerial car fuelled by LPG was commissioned and used by none other than my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.
Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Powers to regulate transport of radioactive material

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Thurso: I wish to ask the Minister a simple question. He will be aware that Dounreay is in my constituency and that nuclear material has been transported from Scrabster harbour to Dounreay, although it has mainly stopped now. What has brought about the need for the new powers? As I understand it, higher grade material is transported by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, or heavily protected by it. Has something happened? Has the constabulary been consulted about the issue?

David Jamieson: Again, the issue is small, but important. The sensitive matter of the transportation of radioactive material is highly regulated in this country, and rightly so. Devonport dockyard in my constituency unloads some high-level nuclear material from submarines, and such issues are extremely important. People live within a few hundred yards from such activities.
The clause will amend section 2 of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991 to enable regulations to be made that permit inspectors at the radioactive materials transport division, the RMTD, to impose requirements for the provision of assistance and information when conducting an investigation. Currently, inspectors cannot insist that people operating the transport systems comply with requests for information. In most cases, the overwhelming majority of them have done so, but it has been brought to our attention that, on two occasions in recent years, a company did not co-operate with the inspectors. In fact, one company even instructed its employees not to participate in the inquiries that were being made by the inspectors. Although such cases are rare, they are extremely serious. We want to close the loophole whereby companies cannot co-operate and, thus,  inhibit inspectors doing their work properly and thoroughly. If they do not co-operate, they will face a considerable fine, which is why we have introduced such a measure. 
Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Private hire vehicles in London

Christopher Chope: The clause deals with a contentious issue among a small group of people, which is why I hope it will command the interest of the Minister, if not necessarily of every member of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal has been the subject of consultation, and paragraph 6.85 on page 142 of the regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that
 ''Opposition to the proposal came mainly from unlicensed companies providing contract services to local authorities. They argued that: the drivers underwent criminal record checks in order to work on the contracts; the services they provided were ''specialist'' in nature, requiring specialist vehicles; the work allowed them to utilise the services of housewives and retired people to drive just a couple of hours a day; many of the part-time drivers would leave rather than acquire licences; the work they undertook did not sit sensibly with the requirements of the PHV licensing system, eg why should a driver have to know his way around the whole of London when he drove, say, one pre-determined route every day for the whole school year; and they would suffer financially if they had to acquire licences.'' 
One firm that comes within the ambit of that opposition is P and J Travel, which is based in Orpington. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) is, at this moment, on his feet in the Chamber in an Adjournment debate, which shows what a diligent MP he is. Knowing that he could not be in two places at once, he asked me to articulate the concerns of P and J Travel about the unnecessarily draconian and inflexible extension of the law. It has made a constructive suggestion, asking whether the Government, if they are intent on proceeding with the change, will allow another exemption. 
The Minister will know that there is already an exemption for wedding cars and funeral cars. Parliament considered such operations to be of a sufficiently specialist nature to warrant exemption. It is the contention of the director of P and J Travel, Paul Yeoell, that his is a specialist operation. It carries special needs children to and from school, often in specially adapted vehicles, and he would argue that his operation is even more specialist than those of people who provide cars for weddings and funerals. It has been said—not by him—that in some circumstances wedding and funeral cars are nothing more than glorified minicabbing operations. If the Government believe that the present situation constitutes a loophole, why do they not believe that it needs to be tightened with regard to wedding and funeral cars? Alternatively, if wedding and funeral cars are to  continue to be exempt, why cannot that exemption be extended to a specialist operation such as that of P and J Travel?

Peter Pike: Order. The clause is about private hire vehicles in London. The hon. Gentleman seems to be going a little wide in his comments. I hope that he will relate them more closely to the clause.

Christopher Chope: I shall certainly limit my remarks about wedding cars and funeral cars to wedding cars and funeral cars in London, if that was not implicit in what I have been saying. The firm of which I speak is in Orpington, which is part of the Greater London area. It is in the London borough of Bromley. I will excuse you, Mr. Pike, for your lack of detailed knowledge of London. Many wish that they knew less about London than they do, especially given the way in which it is run these days. At any rate, I can confirm that Orpington is within the London borough of Bromley, which is represented by an exclusive and very competent team of right hon. and hon. Conservative Members. We do not need to go into the detail of each of their attributes.
P and J Travel operates in that London borough, for the people of Bromley, and it believes that if the clause is unamended it will have to start to lay off staff and its costs will go up. I get the feeling that some hon. Members who are less familiar with the London scene would like us to move on to the next subject. One argument against the clause is that the criminal record checks are not effective. If the checking system is ineffective, it should be tightened, rather than it being addressed through draconian legislation. The onus for checking normally lies with the contracting body, but there is a loophole because unvetted replacement drivers can be used if a vetted driver is unavailable. If there is a loophole in the criminal record check system for local authority transport, and there seems to be some doubt about that, it is identified in paragraph 6.54 of the Government's regulatory impact assessment document. 
The Government might say that the argument about criminal record checks is not well founded and is fallacious. If there is a weakness in the criminal record checks system, it should be put right directly, rather than in a roundabout way, which will result in extra regulation, extra expense and, although it will not necessarily putting P and J Travel out of business, it will seriously burden it. It will also drive a number of its employees out of business, because they regard themselves not as minicab drivers but as proud servants of the public, providing a necessary service to needy children. They do not regard themselves as drivers, and do not want to have to take the tests and be subject to all the regulation of the common or garden minicab driver. That is not to insult the great mass of minicab drivers, who almost invariably vote Conservative, because they are strong and independent and wish to be free, but it is to recognise that people working for P and J Travel do not want to be subject to additional, burdensome regulation.

Wayne David: Are these people members of a registered charity?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution to the debate; I am not sure that I understood his intervention. Since I was about to sit down anyway, I shall do so.

Greg Knight: I hope that the Minister will justify the inclusion of the clause and say that the Government have not introduced it merely because some jobsworth working for Transport for London thinks that there is a loophole, and they want to get their greasy hands on more money. As far as I am aware, the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, which was enacted to deal with the problem of minicab drivers, has been working well. I am not aware of any case of abuse that falls within this loophole. My concern is that if we approve the Bill with this clause in it, it could interfere with existing contractual relations. For example, where an old folks' home has a vehicle under private hire, under a five-year contract, to take residents to bingo once a week at a specific bingo hall, presumably the operator who is carrying out his side of the contract without complaint and without a problem would be prevented from continuing to operate that contract, because a new legal requirement would be imposed on him.
I should like to hear from the Minister why someone who does not deal with the public in the traditional sense of the word, but who works to specific contracts to undertake specific journeys, needs to go through the rigmarole of taking a test to see whether they know parts of London that they may not even cover with their business. That seems a heavy-handed approach. I am not surprised that the request came from Transport for London, but I am surprised that the Minister included the clause in the Bill without exemptions that would cover the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred.

David Jamieson: Clause 44 amends the definition of ''private hire vehicle'' in section 1(1)(a) of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 by removing the words ''to the public''. The amended definition will bring within the PHV licensing regime operators and drivers who currently provide a private hire service to an identified group or organisation but not to the public at large, and who therefore do not currently require licences. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will know that that legislation resulted from a private Member's Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is not without experience in the field of transport.
The clause will eliminate the practice whereby operators and drivers evade licensing by providing a dedicated service to a specific group or organisation. That was not envisaged in the 1998 Act. I am told that in other parts of the country such people have to be fully licensed and go through all the checks; it is only in London that that does not happen. There has been concern that a number of people say that they are part of a contract to do a job, but then offer services to the wider public as well. In other words, there is abuse:  while people are saying that they are working on one type of contract, they are extending their work and carrying out other contracts. 
We have to remember what these people are doing and the people whom they carry. We have heard almost exclusively about the carriage of people who are quite vulnerable: children and elderly people. The relatives of an elderly person and the parents of children have the right to expect that the people who convey them in vehicles have been properly checked. Often, the driver may be the only adult or responsible person in the vehicle. I had a bit of a heavy heart when it came to this clause, because I did not want to inhibit some amateur drivers and people who do a great deal of good work. That is a problem, but we had to weigh on the other side the abuse that is taking place, which could lead to vulnerable people being put at risk by people who have not been checked.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister accept that, when all the activity is carried out for a local authority, that local authority will ensure that the children, for example, are carried in accordance with the highest standards, and that there is no need for additional regulation on top of the checks that the local authority makes?

David Jamieson: First, even if someone gets quasi-authorisation through a local authority, the local authority may not be carrying out checks of the same quality. Secondly, such operators can, and often do, compete in the market in an unfair way, because they are not licensed but are carrying out some of the same work as licensed drivers, who have to meet very high standards. There can be unfair competition in those circumstances, which is unfortunate.
One does not regularly hire wedding and funeral vehicles for one's family, so the circumstances are somewhat different. However, we need to build in that provision for the carriage of children, elderly people and vulnerable people such as disabled people. 
I have some concerns about the burden that we place on voluntary drivers, who do some excellent work. If we could find a way of lifting that burden, I would be interested to hear of it. In the end, what drove me to include this clause in the Bill was the need to underpin it with the safety of the people who are being conveyed.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He sounds more sympathetic to the case that I have put than it might appear in the Official Report, because his body language shows that he realises that this is an issue that affects that particular company. That firm is not aware of any other operator that currently offers exclusive services to local authorities. I hope that the Government will think again about drafting an amendment to the clause that would enable those who provide exclusive services to local authorities to be exempted in the same way as those who provide wedding and funeral services.
The Minister says that wedding and funeral services are not used frequently. Obviously, unless one has a very large and extended family, as an individual one  will not be going to funerals and weddings all that frequently. However, those services are sometimes contracted by funeral directors and funeral directors will use the services most days, even several times a day. I therefore do not think that that way of distinguishing between wedding and funeral services and local authority services is valid. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to those amateur drivers, who are already very much controlled by the local authority contractor. One way in which he can demonstrate that sympathy is to offer to think again about the matter.

David Jamieson: For total clarity, I point out that those people who are genuine volunteers—who receive no recompense for their services—should not be affected at all. The 1998 Act extends to vehicles that are hired, which involves some sort of payment to the person who is carrying out the contract. It does not affect genuine volunteers.

Christopher Chope: I do not know whether that means that it affects people who are remunerated solely with a modest mileage allowance, as a lot of such volunteers are. They are paid about 20p a mile, because there is an Inland Revenue approved rate for mileage recompense and, if that rate is paid, it is not regarded as incurring any taxable liability. I understand that, if such people get paid even that sort of modest rate, they are still caught by the law—but perhaps I am wrong. However, it is unnecessary to go that extra bit further in closing down all those loopholes in the name of safety when we have no evidence that safety is being jeopardised in a case such as the one that I cited. I hope that we will be able to get the Government to think again. Sometimes one can say, ''Hard cases make bad law'' but if the Government listen to this hard case it will make much better law.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Minor Corrections

Amendment made: No. 71, in clause 45, page 47, line 44, at end insert—
 '(1A) In section 105(5) of that Act (regulations: ''the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988''), after ''34'', insert '', 35''.'. —[Mr. Jamieson] 
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 6 agreed to. 
Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - extent

Amendment made: No. 66, in clause 50, page 49, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'only' in line 32 and insert— 
 '(1) Section 1 extends only to England and Wales. 
 (2) Sections 15 and 39 extend'. —[Mr. Jamieson] 
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Debate adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Seven o'clock, till Thursday 3 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.